By Sanjay Raman Sinha
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is facing scrutiny on two fronts: a Supreme Court challenge over the functioning of State Human Rights Commissions and an impending international review that could strip the national body of its highest accreditation status. Together, the developments raise fundamental questions about the independence, effectiveness and credibility of the human rights watchdog.
Recently, a Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, issued notice to the centre, the NHRC and all states on a public interest litigation filed by the Association of Retired Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
The petition alleges serious structural failures in State Human Rights Commissions across the country. Several are said to be defunct, understaffed or functioning without chairpersons and members, leaving citizens without an effective institutional forum to pursue complaints of human rights violations.
Invoking Section 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in DK Basu vs State of West Bengal, the petition seeks urgent, time-bound appointments. It identifies the commissions in Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh and Jharkhand as completely non-functional and calls for accountability over complaints transferred to these bodies by the NHRC.
In a further indictment of administrative neglect, the counsel reportedly informed the Court that even the NHRC’s own website was outdated.
The petition revives concerns about compliance with earlier judicial directions to fill vacancies within three months. More than a decade later, the allegation is that such directions have failed to translate into functioning institutions, leaving the machinery intended to protect citizens’ rights severely weakened.
But the national commission faces another test—this time on the international stage.
Between November 9 and 20, the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA) of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) is scheduled to consider whether NHRC should retain the “A” status it has held since 1999.
The warning signs have been evident for several years. The SCA deferred India’s re-accreditation in 2023 and again in 2024. In 2025, it moved towards downgrading the NHRC to “B” status. The Commission’s challenge was rejected by the GANHRI Bureau in December 2025, although a final opportunity to address the concerns was extended until November 2026.
The distinction is consequential. “A”- status institutions enjoy full participation rights in GANHRI and can participate in proceedings of the UN Human Rights Council, including speaking rights. “B”-status institutions have more limited participation. Accreditation assesses whether a national human rights institution meets international standards of independence and effectiveness; it is not a direct assessment of a country’s entire human rights record.
The NHRC is, therefore, under pressure to demonstrate that it is not merely a statutory institution on paper, but an independent and effective watchdog in practice.
POWERS ON PAPER, CONSTRAINTS IN PRACTICE
The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, gives the Commission substantial powers. It can take up matters suo motu, visit jails, intervene in pending proceedings where permitted, and recommend compensation, prosecution or other corrective action. The government is required to respond to its recommendations within the statutory framework.
Yet, the Commission’s practical authority is more limited than these powers might suggest.
Section 32 provides for government grants to support the NHRC’s functioning. Critics argue that dependence on executive funding can undermine the perception—and potentially the reality—of institutional independence. Moreover, the Commission’s recommendations do not operate in the same way as binding judicial orders.
The legal status of such recommendations has also been contested. In 2021, a full bench of the Madras High Court held that recommendations of State Human Rights Commissions were binding on the government, subject to review. Other High Courts have taken a different view. This divergence highlights the continuing uncertainty surrounding the enforceability of human rights bodies’ recommendations.
Questions have also been raised about the NHRC’s administrative structure. Its secretary-general is drawn from the senior civil service, while police officers on deputation have traditionally played a major role in investigating alleged abuses by the police themselves.
That arrangement raises an obvious question of institutional independence. Concerns about police-led investigations were flagged in 2017 and again in 2023. The NHRC has explored internal arrangements to permit non-police investigators, but critics say the institutional structure has not yet been comprehensively reformed. The Commission’s website has also reportedly continued to list an Investigation Division staffed by police personnel.
The executive wing, headed by a serving or former senior bureaucrat, has faced criticism over the tenure of its leadership. Civil rights groups have alleged repeated extensions, including one reportedly granted in July 2026.
Vacancies have added to the concerns. Two member positions are reportedly unfilled, with vacancies dating back to 2018 and 2021. Such gaps matter not only for the Commission’s workload, but also for its representativeness.
Pluralism has been another recurring issue. In 2024, the SCA expressed concern that the presence of only one woman member was insufficient to ensure adequate gender representation. Non-governmental organisations reiterated concerns about representation in their 2026 submissions.
Civil society groups have also questioned whether the Commission engages a sufficiently broad range of independent voices, arguing that consultation through selected groups can exclude critical perspectives.
THE APPOINTMENT QUESTION
The process for appointing the NHRC’s leadership has also come under scrutiny.
The selection committee is chaired by the Prime Minister and includes the Lok Sabha Speaker, the Union Home Minister and the Leaders of Opposition in both houses of Parliament. Critics argue that the government’s numerical advantage can limit the influence of Opposition members.
The appointment of Justice V Ramasubramanian as chairperson in December 2024, following a vacancy of approximately six months after Justice Arun Mishra’s retirement on June 1, prompted dissent from Congress leaders Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi. They described the process as predetermined and lacking adequate consultation, and proposed Justices Rohinton Nariman and KM Joseph as alternatives, citing considerations of regional, caste and religious representation.
Kharge had also dissociated himself from the selection of Justice Mishra in 2021.
Dissent alone does not establish that an appointment was improper, and a decision reached by a lawful majority is not invalid merely because Opposition members disagree. The broader concern, however, is whether the selection process inspires public confidence.
The SCA has pressed for greater transparency, including advertised vacancies, publicly available shortlists and wider consultation. These measures go beyond what the existing law expressly requires, but they could help strengthen the Commission’s credibility.
THE TEST OF INDEPENDENCE
Civil society organisations have raised further questions about the NHRC’s public disclosures and its responses to alleged violations. Concerns have included the availability of data on custodial deaths and police encounters, as well as the Commission’s engagement with allegations involving police conduct, anti-terror laws, protests, electoral roll deletions, demolitions, Manipur and the treatment of Bengali Muslims and Rohingya.
These are serious allegations and criticisms that require scrutiny against the Commission’s records, published responses and applicable legal standards. Their significance lies in the larger question they raise: whether the NHRC acts with sufficient transparency, independence and consistency when the conduct of the executive itself is under examination.
The Paris Principles, which establish international standards for national human rights institutions, place particular emphasis on independence, pluralism, adequate resources and effective functioning. A watchdog must not only possess statutory powers; its structure and conduct must also inspire confidence that it can exercise those powers without undue influence.
The NHRC’s dependence on government funding, the role of serving officials, the composition of its investigative wing and the appointment process have all become part of this debate. A commission can act courageously despite institutional constraints, but sustained confidence requires credible safeguards for its independence.
CAN THE INSTITUTION BE REBUILT?
The present concerns do not necessarily require the creation of an entirely new institution. Several reforms could be pursued within the existing framework, while others may require legislative changes.
The NHRC could strengthen its independence by seeking greater control over its senior administrative appointments, developing a professional investigative cadre that is not exclusively police-led, and introducing safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest. Vacancies could be advertised well in advance, shortlists published and appointments made within fixed timelines.
The Commission could also improve public access to its work by publishing updated data on complaints, custodial deaths, encounters, recommendations and government compliance. Its engagement with civil society could be widened to include a more representative range of independent organisations and critical voices.
The Supreme Court, meanwhile, could seek detailed affidavits from the centre and the states on vacancies and the functioning of State Human Rights Commissions, and monitor compliance with its earlier directions.
The forthcoming accreditation review will test whether the NHRC has responded meaningfully to concerns that have persisted for years. Reassurances and promises may not be enough. The institution will need to demonstrate tangible progress in independence, representation, transparency and effectiveness.
The central question is no longer simply whether India has a national human rights commission. It is whether that commission has the institutional strength and independence to hold power accountable.
As the November review approaches, the NHRC’s challenge is to demonstrate that its “A” status reflects not merely its history, but the institution it is today—and the reforms it is prepared to undertake.
The post The Watchdog In The Dock appeared first on India Legal.